United States v. Sacia

• Decision Date: 01 January 1880
• Parties: THE UNITED STATES v. SACIA and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

2 F. 754

THE UNITED STATES v. SACIA and others.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey.

1880

Mr Hoffman, for A. J. Park.

Mr Mayo, for Sacia, Allison and others.

Mr Keasbey, U.S. Dist. Att'y, for United States.

This was an indictment, under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes, for conspiracy against the government. One Lewis had died at Hoboken, devising the greater part of his estate to his executors, in trust, to be applied by them to the reduction of the national debt incurred in the war with the rebellion. Jane H. Lewis had filed a caveat to the will containing this devise, and had adduced a large mass of testimony to prove that she was the widow of the testator. This testimony was subsequently shown to be false, and the alleged widow eventually filed a formal renunciation of her claim. The defendants were thereupon indicted for conspiracy. Jane H. Lewis pleaded guilty, and was used as a witness for the prosecution.

NIXON D.J.

(charging jury.) The indictment in this case is found under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. That section provides 'that if two or more persons conspire either to commit any offence against the United States, or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose and one or more of such parties do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, all the parties to such conspiracy shall be liable to a penalty,' etc.

The offence, you perceive, consists in two or more persons conspiring to defraud the government in any manner whatever, in a case where one or more parties to the conspiracy shall do any act to effect the object-- that is, to effect the fraud. It need not be successful. It may fall short of the actual commission of the fraud. Merely agreeing or combining together to commit the fraud is sufficient to constitute the offence, without any loss to the government, if any one of the parties has taken a step towards its execution. The section is very sweeping in its terms, and was doubtless intended to meet the party to the fraud against the government on the very threshold of the perpetration of his crime, and to render him liable to its penalties before the consummation of the fraud.

In the present case the indictment has been found against nine defendants, to-wit: Jane H. Lewis, Andrew J. Park, Marcus T. Sacia, Frank Allison, alias Ward, Henry T. Bassford, George R. Bradford, George W. Westbrook, Mary T. Russell, and Frances Helen Peabody. Five of them only are now on trial, to-wit: Andrew J. Park, Marcus T. Sacia, Frank Allison, Henry T. Bassford, and George R. Bradford.

The general charge against them is that they combined and confederated together to defraud the United States, and that one or more acts were performed by one or more of the parties to give effect to the fraud.

The indictment specifically sets forth that the nine defendants named therein entered into a conspiracy to defraud the United States in the following manner: By depriving the United States of the benefit and advantage of the provisions of a certain last will and testament, made on the first day of October, 1873, by one Joseph L. Lewis, whereby he devised and bequeathed, after making certain legacies, all the rest of his property, amounting in value to more than $1,000,000, as follows: 'I give, devise and bequeath all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real and personal, and of every kind whatsoever, of which I may die seized and possessed, and to which, at my death, I may be entitled, unto my executors, in trust, to expend and apply in reducing the national debt of the United States of America, contracted in the cause of the rebellion in 1861,' which said will was duly made and executed by said Joseph L. Lewis, who afterwards, on March 5, 1877, at Hoboken, in said district, departed this life, leaving the same unrevoked, and was duly presented for probate to the ordinary of the state of New Jersey; and further, by preventing the said residuary bequest from being applied by the said executors to the use of the United States, as provided in said will, by falsely and fraudulently opposing the lawful probate of said will, and falsely pretending that the said Jennie Holbrook was, in fact, the widow of the said testator, and that the said will was invalid and of no effect, and that she, as said widow, was entitled to a large share of the said estate bequeathed as aforesaid for the benefit of the United States, and fraudulently, and by false testimony, preventing the said will from being proved before the ordinary, and thereby preventing the said bequest from taking effect and being applied to the use of the United States in manner aforesaid.

The jury is thus brought to the consideration of three questions, and the court suggests that when you retire to deliberate upon your verdict you should consider them separately, in the order stated: (1) Has the government proved the existence of such a conspiracy as is described in the indictment? (2) Were any of the alleged acts performed by one or more of the parties to give effect to the fraud? (3) If such a conspiracy existed were any of the defendants members of it?

1. Has a conspiracy to defraud the United States been entered into?

The general definition of a conspiracy is an agreement or combination between two or more persons to effect an unlawful purpose.

The statutory offence, under the laws of the United States, is not complete, however, until an act is done by some of the parties to carry into execution the fraud.

The agreement or combination is the offence, but the performance of the alleged act to effectuate it is necessary to make it indictable in this court; and such an offence is rarely provable by direct testimony. All the test books agree that the evidence in proof of the conspiracy may be, and from the nature of the case generally must be, circumstantial. All concerted action to violate the law or to commit a fraud is secret, and is ordinarily shown by separate independent acts, tending to exhibit a common design. The common design is the essence of the charge, and to prove it it is not necessary to prove that the parties came together and actually agreed in terms to have that design, and to pursue it by common means.

The jury will be justified in inferring the existence of a conspiracy when the government satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt, by the testimony of credible witnesses, that any two or more of the parties charged aimed, by their acts, to accomplish the same unlawful purpose or object, one performing one part, and another another part of the same, so as to complete it, although they never met together to concert the means, or to give effect to the design. Nor is it necessary that the conspiracy should originate with the persons charged. Every one coming into a conspiracy at any stage of the proceedings, with knowledge of its existence, is regarded in law as a party to all the acts done by any of the other parties, before or afterwards, in furtherance of the common design. 3 Gr.Ev. 93.

In determining the question of conspiracy it will be safe for you to reckon Mrs. Lewis as one of the parties. She confesses in her testimony, and by her plea of guilty to this indictment, that she was one, and however much you may be disposed to weigh or sift or doubt her evidence as to others you are authorized to accept it as altogether true as to herself. Did she stand alone in her attempt to defraud the government, or were others implicated with her? If one other, then you will find that a conspiracy was formed, because only two are necessary to complete the offence. She states...